So what they're saying is, Iran should get nukes to effectively deter future conflict?
this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2026
166 points (99.4% liked)
Slop.
832 readers
566 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
taps the sign If your opponent accuses you of having nukes, drop whatever you're doing and get nukes
Yes, Iran should have nukes.
They should have built dozens of nukes 30 years ago, yes.
This is the hexbear party line, so not sure why op is upset
Leave it to the Epstein Coalition to try to "but did you see what she was wearing?" their way out of punishment for their atrocities
Genuinely it’s a political ideology of sexual assault
Wanting Iran to have even greater deterrence would be a good take if it came from an anti-imperialist perspective. Instead, this is a very odd tut-tutting from people trying to blame Iran for not pushing back "enough" against the exact people who live in imperialist countries and support imperialism itself, including against Iran. The goal is to create deserving victims.
If Iran is building nukes, it's proof of their evil intent and therefore they must be invaded, if they aren't building nukes, it's proof of their inability to defend themselves and their people and therefore must be invaded.
took a bit but I found it
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/stunning-failure-iranian-deterrence
The failure of Iran’s deterrent invited a devastating regional war. Tehran wanted the benefits of a nuclear weapon without the actual weapon. It wanted the power of a regional proxy network without the discipline to husband it carefully. These contradictions compounded until the structure Iran had built for four decades gave way all at once.
Ok, this does actually have some analysis, but it rather conveniently leaves out Iran's biggest mistake: assuming the US would continue to be lead and governed by rational actors making decisions on real information.
Tehran wanted the benefits of a nuclear weapon without the actual weapon
How are there people still seeing Iran as being like this? They neither wanted a nuclear weapon nor did they try and intimidate anyone about it, they did literally everything in their power to prove they are NOT trying to be a hostile or intimidating force; Israel believed they saw weakness and pounced
This is literally:
Iran: Bans themselves from developing such weapons
Israel: Oh my God they're trying to make a nuclear weapon!
Iran:
Israel: They're just weeks away from it!
Iran:
Israel years later: Any day now!
Iran:
Israel decades later: Any day now!
I mean, yeah, Israel and the United States have been blowing this out of proportion for the whole of the 21st century (and before, too).
But this article isn't wrong either. Energy-grade uranium only needs something like 30% enrichment (if I recall correctly). You need 90% for a bomb. The higher the percentage, the more energy and work intensive the process becomes. Iran has been enriching to something like 60, 70% and they've been doing so for... uh at least a few decades? And there really isn't a reason to do that outside of creating diplomatic pressure. So; trying to have the benefits of a bomb, without actually having a bomb.
I've been somewhat trying to read on this today and it seems like 5-20% is what you'd need maximally for a civilian reactor. And that bombs can be made with pretty low enriched uranium levels with 90% being the sort of consensus for modern weapons.
Victim blaming is the time honored tradition. No matter if it's geopolitics or SV
"Look at what she was wearing!"
German news has this beat, they're patting themselves on the back for technically opposing the actions of Israel and the US (not enough to not let the US use military bases in Germany, of course), while at the same time arguing the American genocidal war makes Iran the evil regime for not caring enough about its people suffering and dying to surrender 
the American genocidal war makes Iran the evil regime for not caring enough about its people suffering and dying to surrender
lmao, I wonder if they feel the same way about Ukraine
Which outlet? Tageschau, zeit, etc?
It was Tagesschau, talking to a "political expert". Take a look at how often they call Iran the spooky theocracy word in just a few paragraphs. "The regime is a radical theocracy" and Trump's plans are failing because he does not understand how little they care about its people, this stuff is just outright evil and a clear way of manufacturing consent
"Sie sind bereit, in Kauf zu nehmen, dass die iranische Bevölkerung leidet. Hauptsache, ihre Machtkonstruktion wird erhalten."
"she should have been carrying a taser" ass discourse
You shouldn't dress that way.
Why do you make me hit you?
You shouldn't have lived where there was oil.
Obviously, Iran deserves part of the blame for putting their country so close to the US military bases and 'Israel'.
That "A" needs to be way smaller dude
in my day, "droppin' caps" meant something very different 
lthough it was the United States and Israel ...
Wanting Iran to have even greater deterrence would be a good take if it came from an anti-imperialist perspective. Instead, this is a very odd tut-tutting from people trying to blame Iran for not pushing back "enough" against the exact people who live in imperialist countries and support imperialism itself, including against Iran. The goal is to create deserving victims.
4 lines for a drop cap?! Egregious! Outrageous! Preposterous!
Say this about Ukraine and the West loses its fucking mind, despite it actually being appropriate there. Iran has absolutely zero blame in this war.
“It’s YOUR fault for being not as big as me! I can’t help but punch people weaker than me!”
Whoever wrote that waste of resources deserves getting stoned.
Foreign Affairs is just a mouthpiece for certaine cliques in the US government.
Jokerfying, to say the least.
Me, shocked: “oh, so you are capable of deeper, granular analysis, and have been this whole time.”
Micheal Malice The man who wrote the book on the DPRK. He went there with an empty suitcase,collected every bit of English printed matter he could find then went back and wrote the history of the DPRK, according to the DPRK. The book is called "Dear Reader"
is that the author of the above Foreign Affairs article?
No, Micheal Malice is the pen name of a writer and Youtuber, he's pretty entertaining if a bit on the chud side, but not too much.Jewish, raised in the USSR but came to America as a kid. He's the one who came up with "you think you hate the media enough, but you don't." He has some great bons mot.
Everything about this guy indicates that he's a fed. Ukranian-American, went on Joe Rogan's podcast, anticommunist, behaves like a batman villain, takes inspiration from Andy Warhol. He went on a 1 week vacation to DPRK and then wrote a fictional book pretending to be Kim Jong Il. He's like Yeonmi Park.
No, apparently that was Nicole Grajewski and Ankit Panda, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace ( 
): https://archive.ph/xULvC